59 comments:

Interesting hypothesis. I suppose the abrupt change in ocean levels *might* occur if the Ice Caps on land (Greenland, Antarctica) broke free. But does it matter if traces of human civilization are left behind in the fossil record for future life forms to ponder? Why this need to matter, to exist beyond the present now?

I've read that the only thing that Man built that will survive is Mt. Rushmore, but that survival depends on the Yellowstone Caldera not being too catastrophic in its next many eruptions.

"ahhhh yeah i think we can unless your world has some alternative 6billion+ creatures running around in it."

The world has a hell of a lot more than "6billion+" creatures running around in it. And, save for the early period of the planet, it always did. Are you suggesting we start extincting some of those creatures? Or like a debased modern "liberal", does your antipathy only extend to your own species?

I think Denver will be safe, and certainly all of Wyoming. Flagstaff too. But what is he saying here - there will be no civilization above an elevation of a few hundred meters? Or that there will be no humanity? No one left capabile of realizing fantastic irony?

All this is, of course, premised on the belief that global warming has much of anything to do with human activity. It does not.

1970 to 2000 warming trends are by no means unique in either their pace or magnitude. Neither was the 1940 to 1970 cooling trend. We grey-hairs remember all the "impending ice age" talk near the end of that fairly standard trend.

Recent O-18/O-16 studies in Antarctic ice cores demonstrate that temperature levels lead atmospheric CO2 levels by about 800 years. The 1980s-era 18/16 studies upon which AGW theories were based were unbelievably crude.

Let's put it this way: if you know what SMOW (Standard Mean Ocean Water) is and what it signifies, you're probably amongst the AGW skeptics.

Add to that the fact that equatorial atmosphere studies in the 10 to 30 km area consistently demonstrate the exact opposite of what is predicted by every single one of the 22 major global warming models and your skepticism ought to deepen.

Cypress and crocodiles at the North Pole some 50 million years ago? Hmmm. Atmospheric CO2 levels 450 million years ago more than 10 times current levels -- during Earth's coldest period in a billion years? Hmmm.

Canadian solar physicists very worried about a return to Maunder Minimum conditions -- think late 17th century winters. Hmmm.

Those of us for whom ten million years is pocket change just don't buy the AGW panic arising from a bunch of politically agendised Baby Boomers whose real time perspective barely extends beyond their next orgasm.

It fascinates me how things like buildings and cities come to be buried. Even in San Francisco which is not an old city people find boats from the Gold Rush buried 30 feet underground in the middle of downtown, because that's where the coastline used to be. (Cite.)

I don't know about the exact amount of species that will exist in the future, but I am firmly convinced that evolution of species will fill any vacuum that might be left by the demise of man or any changes in the global climate. It always has and it always will.

The hubris of some people to assume that if "we" humans are evolved out of the picture that the world will not go on. We really aren't that important. As someone already pointed out. The Yellowstone Caldera can do more to create climate change, ice age most likely, than anything we puny insignificant humans can ever do.

Or like a debased modern "liberal", does your antipathy only extend to your own species?

I'm quite certain it does, although I'm certain hdhouse would carve out a special exemption for himself. You know, cause he's special.

What cracks me up about the overpopulation meme is that the one part of the world whining about it is that part which is reproducing the least or in many cases, in a population death spiral. On the other hand, those nations less capable of sustaining themselves without Western aid are reproducing at rates of 5-1.

Yes the modern liberal will never expect them to, ahem, sacrifice, for Mother Earth.

"It fascinates me how things like buildings and cities come to be buried. Even in San Francisco which is not an old city people find boats from the Gold Rush buried 30 feet underground in the middle of downtown, because that's where the coastline used to be."

You know, come to think of it, Kevin Costner did a brilliant documentary about this coming apocalypse a few years back. I think we should all rent that again to prepare ourselves

If the sea levels rise fast enough and high enough, we can launch our boats at the north end of the Sacramento valley and fish for sea bass in the restored inland sea that once was the Sacramento Valley.

Not to worry, because Barack Obama declared, with absolute certainty, that on the moment of June 2, 2008, because he had secured the votes to win the Democratic Party nomination, the Earth was suddenly relieved of this problem:

“I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when . . . the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

This may be one more reason that TIME magazine deemed him Man of the Year. It’s not every day that we get to witness one man single-handedly slow the rise of the oceans and heal the Earth.

I'm one of those ten million years is pocket change guys, and Bart is exactly right in his skepticism.

As for human structures that will survive sea level rise, in 1976 I built a pagan altar next the Highland Mary Lakes, just above the timberline in SW Colorado. Very close to the Continental Divide so it will have great views of both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

Noah faced the same situation. Did he panic, and wet his pants? No he didn't. He got busy and built a boat. At the time, he was like 600 years old. They don't make 'em like they used to.

Amen brother. I think I remember the part in scriptures when Noah speaks to his sons afterward and says: It's in times like these I remember the words of my friend Andy Duchaine. Get busy building or get busy drownin.

"The hubris of some people to assume that if "we" humans are evolved out of the picture that the world will not go on. We really aren't that important. As someone already pointed out."

While Palladian yammers:

"Or like a debased modern "liberal", does your antipathy only extend to your own species?"

It's nice to know we have both sides of the know-nothing/anti-science idiot contingent of folksy, conservative "thought" represented here: The side that blames the findings of science on liberal, anthropocentric narcissism and the side that blames the findings of science on liberal, "anti-human" sentiment. The death of thought reigns supreme as the the losers of today's politics fight over which part of their cognitive dissonance to display most prominently. Nice going, guys!

Next up: We will get to see which brain cell is fighting the other in Dust Bunny's brain. For Part 2, we will enjoy watching the same spectacle in Palladian. Splendid. Can't wait!

Decortication may make the process easier. It's entirely likely that these no-necks have come prepared, having committed themselves to that process beforehand. Very convenient for your viewing pleasure.

Adapt, migrate, or die. Clearly conservative learned helplessness has rejected the only other option, and the one that humans have excelled at above all other species: Change one's environment or the use of it to adapt to one's needs.

"Adapt, migrate, or die. Clearly conservative learned helplessness has rejected the only other option, and the one that humans have excelled at above all other species: Change one's environment or the use of it to adapt to one's needs."

conservative learned helplessness has rejected the only other option, and the one that humans have excelled at above all other species: Change one's environment or the use of it to adapt to one's needs.

Well when we get around to developing fusion technology let me know.

In the meantime, the only tech available to meet our current energy demands are fossil fuels and nukes, both of which are unacceptable to the granola set.

I find it amazing that despite the radical climate changes in the planet's history, people like MUL somehow thing now is our time to halt the ebb and flow of the seas.

"I find it amazing that despite the radical climate changes in the planet's history, people like MUL somehow thing now is our time to halt the ebb and flow of the seas."

Not aware that I said anything of the sort.

But at least you stayed away from murder fantasies, unlike the self-hating slime mold Palladian. He can't help it, though. His obsession with toilets and bathrooms is telling enough, without delving into his unhealthy interest in mothers.

I shudder to think where he gets that impulse from - perhaps his own. I'm reminded of the satire Larry Flynt did of Jerry Falwell, another morally corrupt and biologically illiterate cretin. Which makes him similar to our designer of outhouses above in at least those respects.

It's funny that no matter how else he's insulted, the one thing that sets his violent and excrementitious gears in motion is one too many references to a field of study that he finds too academic.

MUL -- you'll note that there aren't too many pro-Global-warming voices in this thread. (Or do we just call it "climate change" now? Did AlGore issue a memo?)

That probably has something to do with the fact that the arctic ice cap didn't disappear, as predicted; that it recently snowed in London, and Los Angeles; that it's colder now than it has been in 40 years, and that this was predicted by sun-spot observation, and that wacky theory that the big, glowing ball in the sky might have more impact on climate than does the concentration of a trace gas that makes up a tiny, tiny percentage of the atmosphere.

But you continue to hold fast to your dreams, MUL. Don't listen to those heathens and apostates as they try to tear down your church.

"I find it amazing that despite the radical climate changes in the planet's history, people like MUL somehow thing now is our time to halt the ebb and flow of the seas."

Not aware that I said anything of the sort.

What did this mean then?

Clearly conservative learned helplessness has rejected the only other option, and the one that humans have excelled at above all other species: Change one's environment or the use of it to adapt to one's needs.

I read that as a fairly clear direction to control nature, to change our environment to suit us. Since we're talking about global climate cycles and the notion of major coastal flooding, how does "the ebb and flow of the seas" not apply?

I read "adapt, migrate, or die" as the point of view you were ridiculing. And well, the thing is, that if the oceans were to rise it's only emotion that sees that as a bad thing. Yes, people all over the world live disproportionately on the coasts, but there would still be coasts. There would also, if the seas rose that much, likely be wide areas of shallow warm seas and island chains... this is all very good for life. Good for the planet. Annoying for humans, but so? We are very adaptable and experts at migration.

True enough that no one is being serious, much, about the subject but that's because it's not happening.

You said there were two sides...

The side that blames the findings of science on liberal, anthropocentric narcissism and the side that blames the findings of science on liberal, "anti-human" sentiment.

In fact there is only one side... the side that questions, not science, but the insistent assumption that there is no debate about the "findings of science." That global warming itself and all the fantastic disaster scenarios are a done deal, an indisputable scientific fact, rather than apocalyptic fantasy.

It's necessary to examine those assumptions.

Just like the sidebar ad stating, "Overpopulation is an environmental problem," and "What are the factors that are causing America's overpopulation?"

I was tempted to click over and see if I could "join the debate" and cause trouble by showing that illegal immigration and the birth rate of Hispanics is one of the "factors" causing America's overpopulation problem... heck, I could find stats for that... but the *truth* is that the assumption is in error. The *assumption" that the statements about overpopulation are true makes useful debate impossible. It denies science because it puts a foundational element off limits.

Your assumptions about the "findings of science" are very much the same.

The only respondent who seemed even remotely open to reason was Hoosier, and hence, I responded to him alone. I would apologize if that upsets you Synova - as I don't think you're an ill-intentioned or particularly malevolent person, but since it was obvious to me that you made a slew of assumptions that betrayed a naivite about the particulars of scientific discussions on climate change, as well as what I said, I didn't see much of a point to addressing what you wrote. You clearly would like to debate some of what I said, and although I've had this "debate" here before, (and from any reasonable vantage point, decisively won), I think you are trying to approach this topic honestly enough that I will attempt to address your points as best I can. I can't guarantee that my answers will satisfy you, but that is not the purpose of a reasoned debate, or of science.

"I find it amazing that despite the radical climate changes in the planet's history, people like MUL somehow thing now is our time to halt the ebb and flow of the seas."

Not aware that I said anything of the sort.

What did this mean then?

Clearly conservative learned helplessness has rejected the only other option, and the one that humans have excelled at above all other species: Change one's environment or the use of it to adapt to one's needs.

I read that as a fairly clear direction to control nature, to change our environment to suit us. Since we're talking about global climate cycles and the notion of major coastal flooding, how does "the ebb and flow of the seas" not apply?

I don't know what ebb and flow of seas refers to. The tides? More mundane and long-standing trends in levels? What, exactly? It's a very vague and traditional phrase. The climate change denialist/skeptic crowd loves to pretend that it can conflate existing or previous back-and-forth trends or more scaled changes from before into the ones that are occuring now. To do so is folly and analogous to saying that because the price in a stock has risen or fallen in the past, or even now, significant economic growth didn't occur specifically throughout the nineties. If the analogy sounds trite, I apologize, but I'm only doing my best to try to address what seem to me very widespread and very elementary errors that many people strongly hold to nonetheless. I'm sorry if it sounds arrogant to say as much.

I read "adapt, migrate, or die" as the point of view you were ridiculing.

I actually like the saying and found it apt. Which is why I repeated it.

And well, the thing is, that if the oceans were to rise it's only emotion that sees that as a bad thing.

No it's not. It would take efforts more gargantuan than those which the right like to ridicule Obama for making, to find a way to cope with such a significant effect.

Yes, people all over the world live disproportionately on the coasts, but there would still be coasts. There would also, if the seas rose that much, likely be wide areas of shallow warm seas and island chains... this is all very good for life. Good for the planet. Annoying for humans, but so? We are very adaptable and experts at migration.

No one is saying that rising average global temperatures wouldn't be good "for life".

True enough that no one is being serious, much, about the subject but that's because it's not happening.

You said there were two sides...

The side that blames the findings of science on liberal, anthropocentric narcissism and the side that blames the findings of science on liberal, "anti-human" sentiment.

In fact there is only one side... the side that questions, not science, but the insistent assumption that there is no debate about the "findings of science." That global warming itself and all the fantastic disaster scenarios are a done deal, an indisputable scientific fact, rather than apocalyptic fantasy.

In circles that are educated about all the variables at stake, it comes as close to that as possible. And using terms like "apocalyptic" is a way of framing a discussion in terms that are favorable to you and your skepticism, or to your religious beliefs, or to Hollywood. It is not an honest or accurate portrayal of the concepts and terminology of the discussion you are characterizing.

Just like the sidebar ad stating, "Overpopulation is an environmental problem," and "What are the factors that are causing America's overpopulation?"

You're conflating one phenomenon (and the way in which people in that ad responded to it) with another.

I was tempted to click over and see if I could "join the debate" and cause trouble by showing that illegal immigration and the birth rate of Hispanics is one of the "factors" causing America's overpopulation problem... heck, I could find stats for that... but the *truth* is that the assumption is in error. The *assumption" that the statements about overpopulation are true makes useful debate impossible. It denies science because it puts a foundational element off limits.

Why do you keep referencing a fanciful and irrelevant ad as a way to characterize the scenarios experienced by any and all opposition to a completely different topic?

Your assumptions about the "findings of science" are very much the same.

Evidence? Or is this just an opinion? It sounds like one. And opinions are fine. Although, like assholes, everyone has one. It is certainly a problem when people can't separate out their opinions from facts or think theirs are more important than anyone else's.

All I tend to see are assertions by people who are incapable of relating these supposedly well argued arguments but demand that I accept their judgment. (Sometimes they even put icing on the cake by explaining how Freeman Dyson simply doesn't have the subject knowledge for an informed opinion.) You've done the same now, offering nothing but assertions that your opinion on the matter is the right one.

Nor have you said what you thought we should do, when you said we should do it and insisted that controlling global systems (oceans and tides) wasn't what you meant. What did you mean for us to do to control our environment?

This to me is the biggest "tell" that global warming alarmists don't really know what they're talking about either. Anything they suggest needs to be done is clearly and obviously inadequate and ineffective to stop the disaster that they predict. It's hard to believe anything other than that they don't *really* believe it either.

Please enumerate how we stop the world from warming. If it's a matter of saving the world, it's not enough for us to piss around in hybrid vehicles (which, natch, have a bigger carbon and pollutant impact than some alternatives), if it's saving the world we have to *make* people comply. Or we're doomed.

As I said, there is no reason at all to believe that the believers actually believe their own rhetoric.

You also have not supported the idea that adapting, migrating with the coast as it moves, is more daunting than the task of controlling global climate. I mean... on the one hand we build new structures farther inland... on the other hand we master Mother Nature.

Well, dandy for you, too. Whatever that means. You do realize that you're the one taking issue with a general scientific consensus, not me. If you have a problem with it, that's your problem, not mine. If you want me to play the role of your personal science teacher, then state your points of confusion/objection concisely and politely, and I will be happy to oblige. I would do the same for you regarding a field of study that you might happen to know more about than I do. I certainly won't make you an object of derision for knowing more than I do about something. That's a pretty stupid thing to do, IMO. But perhaps you disagree.

"All I tend to see are assertions by people who are incapable of relating these supposedly well argued arguments but demand that I accept their judgment."

Assertions are not the same things as conclusions from well-structured arguments. Again, identify your objection first, then state it. But don't pretend that when you can't state a coherent objection to a complicated body of knowledge, or identify a point within it that irks you so, that your judgment demands anyone else's acceptance either. (i.e. don't be a hypocrite, especially when you're not in as strong a position as whomever you're challenging).

"(Sometimes they even put icing on the cake by explaining how Freeman Dyson simply doesn't have the subject knowledge for an informed opinion.) You've done the same now, offering nothing but assertions that your opinion on the matter is the right one."

Then cite your freaking objection to a point of science, a piece of evidence, and you can attack my EXPLANATION for it all you want. And learn the difference between an assertion and an explanation, if you don't mind. Stop confusing facts and explanations with "opinions". I am not dealing in opinions here. If that's what you want to do, then you are seeking a different discussion than what you will get from me.

"Nor have you said what you thought we should do,"

Because that's a different discussion. And because I don't have a fixed "opinion" on that. (Note what we "should" do is, almost by definition, an opinion). And because it throws an extra variable into the discussion that denialists tend to take even stronger objection to, and that biases their ability to have a rational discussion on what is happening right now, absent any prescriptions - which is a different matter.

"when you said we should do it and insisted that controlling global systems (oceans and tides) wasn't what you meant. What did you mean for us to do to control our environment?"

I mean that what we do affects our environment in the broadest sense that I could have made that claim. We build dams. It affects the environment. We built smokestacks. That affected the environment. We put so much sludge into the Ohio River that it once caught fire. I'd say that's an example of having an impact on one's environment. What I'm saying is that we can go the extra step and build windmills, which will decrease the amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere, thereby affecting the environment back into the previous state of equilibrium at which it existed up until recently. We stopped putting lead into gasoline, which affected the amount of lead that we breathed, and altered the state of our environment back into a previous setting. I'm saying that we can do things to change the ways we've affected the environment up until now and that bring it back into a healthier and easier to manage state, with less negative externalities.

"This to me is the biggest "tell" that global warming alarmists don't really know what they're talking about either."

Whatever. More opinions here with no fact or reasoning supplied other than "I don't like your point of view." A very simple-minded heuristic for making judgments about the world, and utterly irrational. A tribal "us against them" mentality that reaffirms your prejudices, etc. But I say go with it if it's all you've got.

"Anything they suggest needs to be done is clearly and obviously inadequate and ineffective to stop the disaster that they predict. It's hard to believe anything other than that they don't *really* believe it either."

More assertions without any evidence. And who are "they"? Our worldviews, our bases for making decisions, our assessments of the importance of rational and empirical judgements are utterly incompatible. And oh yeah, this has nothing to do with "belief" as such. At least, not for me it doesn't.

"Please enumerate how we stop the world from warming."

If you haven't got the idea by now that it has to do with not putting carbon into the atmosphere, then you will have to clarify for me your level of understanding of the arguments you wish to address. I am seriously at a loss for assessing what your level of understanding is at this point.

"If it's a matter of saving the world,"

Sounds like a convenient if distracting motto for spreading propoganda, and not focusing on the particulars.

"it's not enough for us to piss around in hybrid vehicles (which, natch, have a bigger carbon and pollutant impact than some alternatives),"

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

"if it's saving the world we have to *make* people comply. Or we're doomed."

Again. More slogans and catchphrases. They don't get to the heart of the matter in any objective sense. They are part of the hasty conclusions you make when you try to tack on a discussion about policy onto a discussion that would be about the science of the matters I thought you were interested in "debunking". One thing at a time.

"As I said, there is no reason at all to believe that the believers actually believe their own rhetoric."

Yep, as I suspected. Because your construction is entirely made of appeals to "belief" and "rhetoric". I'm glad you find such things useful. But you are looking through a window and refusing to see the part beyond your own reflection.

"You also have not supported the idea that adapting, migrating with the coast as it moves, is more daunting than the task of controlling global climate."

To do so would require us to believe that more usable land will become available, which is an unsupportable and risky stretch to assume. But feel free to "believe" it if you want. Beliefs are not the same thing as reasoned arguments based on facts, as I reminded you earlier.

"I mean... on the one hand we build new structures farther inland... on the other hand we master Mother Nature."

A pretty vague thing to state given the concepts you'd like to think you can debunk. By the way, do you even know what is meant by the concept of a "specific heat capacity"? It's what the conversation would hinge on - if you could make more specific appeals to actual facts.

"How is Mother Nature the easier project?"

Who is "Mother Nature" and how does she figure into any of this? And why have you been projecting your penchant for making anthropomorphic descriptions about the universe onto your "opponents"? Pretty strange approach to take.

In any event, I've made an earnest effort to address concerns that you seemed very intent on addressing to me. You continued to do this after I ignored you the first time. If you are serious about being listened to and about wanting to understand what you are objecting to, you would look at the responses I have taken the generous time to make to your replies, and try to understand them. But if you are not, then well I suppose that won't happen. But at that point it becomes an issue of who is taking their argument more seriously.